Europe’s nuclear stress tests turn a blind eye to potential disaster

The terrible consequences of the Fukushima nuclear disaster are far from being adequately dealt with, but unfortunately, politicians continue to put the nuclear industry’s interests before the wellbeing and safety of the public.

Last week European Union energy ministers started considering the results of “stress tests” performed on Europe’s nuclear reactors - tests that were supposed to assess the safety of plants in the event of a disaster. To bring a large dose of reality to these tests, Greenpeace released a report written by independent experts that finds the testing of these reactors is mired in flaws, blind spots and complacency.

Given that there are more than 100 reactors operating in Europe, none of which should be considered safe, and that tens of millions of people live within 75km of these reactors, the assessment of the risks is crucially important.

But some of the findings in our report are disturbing. It has been just 15 months since the Fukushima disaster and yet it seems the officials conducting the stress tests have very short memories. The report finds that:

Little attention has been paid to multiple-reactor failure like that at Fukushima, or multi-installation failure, such as a communication breakdown likely in the chaos of a nuclear disaster. Multiple disaster scenarios that gave birth to the tests were omitted and most member states refused to analyse the consequences of airplane crashes leading either directly, or indirectly (planes crashing nearby) to nuclear disaster.

In other words, tests that were called for because of what happened at Fukushima have, in fact, ignored what happened at Fukushima. And yet the parallels between European reactors and those at Fukushima are startling.

The independent experts found alarming shortfalls in back-up power for nuclear reactors (just like at Fukushima), that reactors are incapable of handling challenging earthquake or flood conditions (just like at Fukushima), and that radiation shielding is woefully inadequate in dangerous spent fuel storage facilities across the continent (just like at Fukushima).

Evacuation plans in the event of a nuclear disaster were not considered by the stress tests. This is despite the fact some European nuclear reactors are 10km from cities such as Antwerp in Belgium. What’s the word for that? Kafkaesque? Orwellian? In any case, it is certainly dangerous.

Check out our interactive map to see how close you, your family and your friends might be to one of Europe’s reactors, or to a reactor anywhere else. You will see the risks EU officials are happy to turn a blind eye to as they continue to protect the interests of an already powerful business sector.

They don’t seem to be even remotely interested in trying to restore nuclear power’s shattered reputation. Perhaps they’ve even realised that this is impossible.

So where does this leave us? It’s easy to feel powerless in the face of a vast organisation like the European Union, but there are things you can do.

If you live in Europe, you can contact your Member of the European Parliament (you can find out who they are here) and let them know what’s happening. If you live in a country outside Europe that has nuclear power, is your government also conducting stress tests? Are they rigorous and thorough? Be a detective. Be an activist. Tell your elected representatives that a better, sustainable future is possible without nuclear power.

(For a copy of the full report, click here. Our briefing 'Nuclear Stress Tests - flaws, blind spots and complacency' is available here.)

Your "independent" experts should look again at the requirements of the stress tests and how they are being implemented in each of the count...

Your "independent" experts should look again at the requirements of the stress tests and how they are being implemented in each of the countries. You should also review the repsonses from each of the countries, each of which has identified recommendations for further strengthening the resilience of nucler facilities. They should also be read in conjunction with safety requiremetns already in place e.g. the aspects of aircraft crash that you feel have been englected)

It is important to learn lessons from incidents such as Fukushima, and this is the intention of the stress tests.

I think Greenpeace is getting all hot and bothered about not very much again.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) remember Сhernobyl
says:

Well, when Chernobyl happened, even farmers in Alps suffered. More then 1000 km away.
So if you look at the map of reactors, you will easily see...

Well, when Chernobyl happened, even farmers in Alps suffered. More then 1000 km away.
So if you look at the map of reactors, you will easily see then 1 meltdown will cause a real catastrophe for european agriculture. And will harm economically - Japan is a recent example of that.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) GD A
says:

@remember Chernobyl,
I don't really see the point you're making. The sun causes skin cancer - should we all stay inside? People drown in...

@remember Chernobyl,
I don't really see the point you're making. The sun causes skin cancer - should we all stay inside? People drown in the sea, shall we ban swimming? No, we balance the risks and benefits. Without nuclear power, we will have no energy security. Therefore, it is a benefit. The likelihood of a nuclear accident are minutely small. Balance.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

@GDA - Interesting remarks about the stress tests. First to remind you: the European Council asked for a comprehensive assessment. It was clear that t...

@GDA - Interesting remarks about the stress tests. First to remind you: the European Council asked for a comprehensive assessment. It was clear that that could never be done and certainly not in the (first) half and (later) full year that was taken for it. Only four points were chosen for the assessment: earthquake risk, flooding risk, station black-out irrespective of cause and loss of ultimate heat sink irrespective of cause. Although it was asked to also assess combinations of these and multi-reactor failure, you will hardly find such assessments in the stress test reports.
The reports were first made by the operators, then by the national regulators and then peer-reviewed by international teams made up by the regulators and a representative of the Commission. The stress tests only looked at paper, not at real mortar and steel.

Some lessons have been learned. This Greenpeace report - and especially the in-depth report of Wenisch and Becker e.a, - shows that most lessons have, however, been left out. Some of them crucial. The report confirms that the stress tests were not comprehensive (and that claim was already dropped in an early stage by the regulators), but also that they avoid addressing some of the more logical lessons of Fukushima.

Bothered about not very much again? You are sold a full scope stress test (which would have been impossible anyway), but what you get is a sub-par partial assessment that avoids important conclusions. And some of these conclusions are clear: close down the most dangerous installations. I think that is enough to be concerned about - the system does not work properly.

One small example (not from the report!) from the country from which I write these lines: The operator report for the stress tests for CEZ was written with help of CEZ's research institute UJV in Rez. They then had it "independently" assessed by Westinghouse with ... UJV in Rez. The regulator report was written by SUJB with support from UJV in Rez. To my great surprise, one of the team leaders in the peer-review appeared to be from... UJV in Rez. Such a throughout control of CEZ over the entire procedure simply undermines credibility.

The conclusion I have to draw from this report is that safety culture in Europe - though different in each country - is nearer to that in pre-Fukushima Japan than many want to have true. And that is something to be bothered about.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) ross_in_japan
says:

i wish i could say "i don't believe some people" but so much has happened since last march and I am rapidly losing hope. You people, G...

i wish i could say "i don't believe some people" but so much has happened since last march and I am rapidly losing hope. You people, GDA being a prime example, make me very sad. You talk about this like it's a rowing boat accident at the local park and make comparisons to this effect. you obviously have never lived near one of these reactors with your infant children when the fucking thing goes off and you're told that it's safe. if my kids develop cancers, i'm going to want to kill somebody.

what ARE these stress tests???? tell me, someone. and tell me that after a stress test, conducted by a regulated commission/organisation that never wants to see the end of this form of energy that you are happy to live next door with your kids (or your brother's or sister's or friend's kids, if you don't have any of your own). It is time to move on. Debate should already be over and we should be making sacrifices to help solve the energy crisis.

Is it really that important to be able to use your microwave, tumble drier, hairdrier and watch tv at the same time?????

people like GDA depress the hell out of me. Can you really be so dense. Or do you get a real sense of satisfaction knowing that your MP/ senator or whatever, is going to have a nice comfortable retirement???

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) First
says:

I'd much, much rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal or oil fired plant. Accidents and all, nuclear kills far less per gigawatt-hour prod...

I'd much, much rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal or oil fired plant. Accidents and all, nuclear kills far less per gigawatt-hour produced than oil or coal. In case you haven't noticed, oil, coal and, even solar, have their accidents too. (Solar power deaths are connected with intallation and maintenance accidents). Coal and oil also kill via their pollution and smoke. Wood heat also kills via pollution and smoke. Remember that when you're camping out in your favorite nature preserve, singing songs by the campfire.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) First
says:

I'm with GDA. We don't build them like Chernobyl, i.e. no containment vessal. Because France went mostly nuclear, their air is far cleaner t...

I'm with GDA. We don't build them like Chernobyl, i.e. no containment vessal. Because France went mostly nuclear, their air is far cleaner than those that continued with coal and oil. Here's a chart of expected loss of life expectancy per risk: